View Single Post
03-23-2013, 11:06 AM
Registered User
NorthStar4Canes's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,371
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by blogofmike View Post
Should we call the HHOF and tell them to remove Detroit from the dynasties wing since they only had one Cup defence? And if coming back after being knocked down is so easy, why have so few teams been able to do it? The Isles certainly couldn't.

I think when assessing dynasties we should look into many factors.

You seem to think we should count Cups.

Fine. Then I can only say 5 in 7 beats 4 in 4, because it works out to 4 in 7 in the end. Unless consecutive Cups is a requirement to the point that the Red Wings dynasty wasn't a dynasty, 5 > 4.

I think that's silly though. I would prefer to discuss "what's behind the wins" and would invite YOU to "go for the full measure" or not at all
Uh, try settling down first, and then re-read the original question...what was the GREATER dynasty. Do you see anything in what I've written to suggest the Oil didn't have a dynasty, or the Wings? You're debating with yourself things which haven't been argued, certainly not by me.

Now after you've done that, just suck it up and accept the fact that in answering the question there are those who think an unblemished string of champtionships is the deciding factor in which dynasty was greater between the two. I watched both those teams during those dynasties, and their opponents not only in the playoffs but in their respective divisions. Do you honestly think you're going to re-hash 30 year old stats (behind the wins) and sway my opinion as to what criteria is valid as it pertains to the question?

This question...Oilers vs Isles was being debated in bars and on sports pages a quarter century ago as it was happening, and probably every hockey fan on the planet, including myself, was involved in it at one time or another. It was discussed in greater, real-time detail and more at length than it ever could be the full measure. Some people thought one way, others thought the other, still others couldn't decide.

This has to be one of the biggest "been there, done that" questions/debates for anyone living through those years of back-to-back dynasties. So go ahead and sift-away through what's "behind the wins". Have fun doing something that's already been done about 5 billion times before 1990. But while you're doing it start coming to terms with the fact that not everyone is going to buy into your formula because (and you can trust me on this) you won't be breaking any new ground or illuminating anything that wasn't beaten to death long ago.

Last edited by NorthStar4Canes: 03-23-2013 at 11:23 AM.
NorthStar4Canes is offline   Reply With Quote